The appellants appealed the City's Development Charge By-law.

The dispute centered on whether a portion of a road crossing through the appellants' properties should be classified as an Arterial Road or a Major Collector Road.

The City argued it was a Major Collector Road and thus a 'local service' for which development charges could not be imposed, requiring the developers to pay the construction costs.

The Tribunal found that the road portion was an Arterial Road, not a local service, and therefore subject to the imposition of development charges.

The Tribunal directed the City to fund the costs through development charges or general revenues and prohibited the City from recovering the costs from the appellants as a condition of subdivision approval.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a negligence action arising from an alleged gas leak and installation of a replacement boiler in a condominium unit.

The plaintiff alleged exposure to toxic fumes and off‑gassing from carpeting that caused multiple respiratory and neurological conditions.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide admissible expert evidence establishing causation between the defendants’ conduct and the alleged health injuries.

Medical reports relied upon were not in admissible affidavit form and were largely based on the plaintiff’s self‑reports.

The absence of air quality testing or expert engineering evidence linking the installation or maintenance of the boilers to the alleged injuries was fatal to the claim.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.